Arbitral Award on the Issue of Standing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943 Paolo Barelli v. Fédération Internationale de Natation ARBITRAL AWARD ON THE ISSUE OF STANDING delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT Sitting in the following composition: President: Mr. Romano F. Subiotto Q.C., attorney-at-law in Brussels, Belgium and solicitor in London, United Kingdom Arbitrators: His Honour James Robert Reid QC, retired judge in West Liss, United Kingdom Dr Jan Raker, attorney-at-law in Stuttgart, Germany Ad hoc clerk: Ms Marta Janek, attorney-at law in Brussels, Belgium and New York, United States in the arbitration between Paolo Barelli, Rome, Italy represented by Mr. Claude Ramoni, attorney-at-law in Lausanne, Switzerland, and Mr. Andrew McGregor, solicitor in Manchester, United Kingdom Appellant and Fédération Internationale de Natation, Lausanne, Switzerland represented by Mr. Jean-Pierre Morand, attorney-at-law in Lausanne, Switzerland Respondent * * * CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943 Paolo Barelli v. FINA - page 2 I. THE PARTIES 1. Paolo Barelli (the “Appellant”) is the President of the Ligue Européenne de Natation (“LEN”), the Honorary Secretary of the Fédération Internationale de Natation (“FINA”), a member of the FINA Bureau and the FINA Executive. 2. FINA is the international federation recognized by the International Olympic Committee for administering international competition in water sports. FINA controls the development of the following aquatic events: swimming, diving, high diving, water polo, synchronized swimming and open water swimming. 3. According to Rule C17.8 of the FINA Constitution, the FINA Executive “is responsible for making decisions on matters referred to it in the FINA Rules and Regulations or matters referred to it by the Bureau or for other cases, which need decisions between the meetings of the Bureau.” 4. The FINA Ethics Panel is provided for by Rule C24.1 to C24.9 of the FINA Constitution. In particular, Rule C24.7 provides: “The FINA Ethics Panel shall have the power to hear and decide any violation of the Code of Ethics, including to impose sanction(s) as set out in C.24.9.” II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 5. On December 27, 2016, the Appellant filed a statement of appeal in case CAS 2016/A/4924 and on January 12, 2017, the Appellant filed a statement of appeal in case CAS 2017/A/4943. 6. The Appellant filed the appeal brief in case CAS 2016/A/4924 on January 6, 2017. 7. On January 23, 2017, the Respondent submitted an application seeking to obtain decisions on bifurcation of the proceedings and on resolution of the disputes based on preliminary issues linked with jurisdiction and standing. The Respondent also applied for a stay of its deadline to answer in case CAS 2016/A/4924. 8. On January 26, 2017, the Appellant applied for a 7-day extension to respond to the Respondent’s request. This extension was granted until February 2, 2017. 9. On January 26, 2017, the Respondent clarified its position that at the level of the issues of jurisdiction and standing, consolidation of the proceedings would be preferable. However, the Respondent agreed that both matters could be treated separately as regards their merits; but proposed to align the proceedings in terms of deadlines and procedural conduct. 10. On February 1, 2017, the Appellant requested that the question of jurisdiction be resolved by the CAS Panel (“the Panel”) upon its constitution. However, in contrast to the Appellant’s position on the issue of jurisdiction, the Appellant objected to the Respondent’s application for bifurcation on the issue of standing. The Appellant also argued that the issue of standing to sue is a matter related to the merits of the case in issue, not its admissibility. Finally, the Appellant did not agree to the Respondent’s request to file a single and common response to the Appellant’s appeal briefs. CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943 Paolo Barelli v. FINA - page 3 11. On February 2, 2017, the Panel confirmed that it had decided a bifurcation in respect of the issue of jurisdiction only. 12. On February 2, 2017, the Appellant challenged the appointment of Mr. Ken Lalo as President of the Panel. On February 3, 2017, Mr. Ken Lalo recused himself from the cases in question. 13. On February 6, 2017, the Respondent filed a further submission concerning jurisdiction and standing and stated that they would rely on the content of their submission of January 23, 2017. 14. On February 14, 2017, Mr. Romano Subiotto QC was appointed as the President of the Panel. 15. On February 16, 2017, the Appellant filed his submission on jurisdiction concerning both cases (CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943). 16. On March 8, 2017, the Panel decided to retain jurisdiction in CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943. The Panel also issued the following procedural directions to the Parties: a. “The Appellant shall file, within 10 days from the receipt of the present letter, his appeal brief in the matter CAS 2017/A/4943. b. The Respondent shall then be granted a deadline of 20 days from the receipt of the above appeal brief to file its answers in the matters CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943.” 17. On March 8, 2017, the Appellant asked for an extension until March 27, 2017, to file his appeal brief in the matter CAS 2017/A/4943. 18. On March 10, 2017, the Respondent opposed to the Appellant’s request for an extension until March 27, 2017 to file his appeal brief in the matter CAS 2017/A/4943. 19. On March 15, 2017, the Panel granted the Appellant’s request for an extension until March 27, 2017 to file his appeal brief in CAS 2017/A/4943. 20. On March 27, 2017, the Appellant filed an appeal brief in case CAS 2017/A/4943. 21. On April 19, 2017, the Respondent filed his answer to the appeal briefs in cases CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943. 22. On May 3, 2017, the Appellant confirmed that he would like the CAS to hold an oral hearing to determine the CAS 2016/A/4924 appeal. In addition, the Appellant reiterated that in the appeal brief in CAS 2016/A/4924, he made three procedural applications. The Appellant asked the CAS for a ruling on these three procedural applications. 23. On May 7, 2017, the Respondent filed observations in relation to the issues raised in the Appellant’s communication of May 3, 2017. 24. On May 8, 2017, the CAS decided to bifurcate the proceedings and to render a partial award on the issue of the Appellant’s standing to sue. CAS 2016/A/4924 and CAS 2017/A/4943 Paolo Barelli v. FINA - page 4 25. On May 8, 2017, the CAS also communicated that the time limit to communicate the arbitral award to the Parties, pursuant to Art. R59 of the Code, had been extended until August 11, 2017 by an order of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. 26. On May 29, 2017, the CAS fixed June 14, 2017 as the hearing date. 27. On June 14, 2017, the hearing on the issue of standing was held. III. APPEALED DECISIONS 1. CAS 2016/A/4924 28. The appealed decision is a decision of the FINA Ethics Panel issued on December 5, 2016 (“Appealed Decision in CAS 2016/A/4924”). The Appealed Decision in CAS 2016/A/4924 was issued further to a referral of the FINA Executive to FINA Ethics Panel asking the FINA Ethics Panel to consider whether circumstances reported by the Appellant in regard of Mr. Husain Al Musallam (“Mr. Al Musallam”), FINA First Vice- President, would constitute circumstances relevant under the FINA Code of Ethics. 29. In particular, on June 17, 2016, the Appellant sent a letter to Mr. Julio Maglione, FINA’s President and Mr. Cornel Marculescu, FINA’s Executive Director, alleging that Mr. Musallam, President of Asia FINA and first Vice President of FINA and Director of the Asian Olympic Committees, approached a number of Presidents of National Federations during the LEN Elective Congress on May 8, 2016, and encouraged them to vote for the Appellant’s opponent in the election, Mr. Erik van Heijningen. 30. On July 15, 2016, the Appellant sent a chasing letter requesting an update. On July 22, 2016, the Appellant received an email from Mr. Maglione, in which Mr. Maglione informed the Appellant that the matters he had raised in his letter dated June 17, 2016 were to be discussed at the then forthcoming FINA Executive meeting in Rio. 31. On November 29, 2016, the Appellant sent a complaint against Mr. Al Musallam in the form of an email to the chair of the FINA Ethics Panel with detailed submissions and supporting documents. a. In his complaint, the Appellant asserted that “Mr. Husain Al Musallam is in breach of Section 13 of the Code, in that his position as Director General of the OCA places him in a clear potential conflict of interest with his position as first Vice President of FINA.” b. The second aspect of the Appellant’s complaint concerned steps that Mr. Al Musallam allegedly took, prior to LEN election in May 2016. The Appellant claimed that the steps Mr. Al Musallam took to support the candidacy of Mr. Erik van Heijningen, were a breach of the FINA Code of Ethics, in particular a breach of the principles of neutrality and integrity. 32. On December 4, 2016, the FINA Ethics Panel received a matter which had been transferred to it pursuant to Clause 24.5 of the FINA Constitution concerning the First FINA Vice President, Mr.